This is what a hypocrite looks like : Stefan Molyneux abusing DMCA to censor

[GunnyFreedom]

Have you blogged/written about this? I would like to see a credible, logical, rational defense of IP. No one on RPFs (or the interwebz at large, AFAIK) has done it, though they have certainly tried.

I have plenty, actually. Anti-IP folks are either unwilling or unable to get it so I don't see the point in the exercise. I can burn up an entire week of ripping my hair out arguing and not a single soul is going to budge. It's not like I haven't made this argument here before. My conclusion was without IP we wouldn't have books in the modern age, or if we did it would be recycled disjointed pap written by machines, and technology advance would grind to a halt.

I have no desire to go through a whole week to 2 weeks of that absurd stress again only to have all my points overlooked, distorted, or otherwise ignored. Life is too short to argue with brick walls.

 

[jmdrake]

Because you lazy and can't be bothered to listen for the context. You can certainly disagree with his assessment but that does not make him somehow not libertarian or confused. Stefan is speaking from the point of view of store owner. No morality is being applied here. They are victims according to the law and their own self interest. IF you were honest you would acknowledge that Stefan said that he would not make these cigarette laws in the first place.

Difference between him and you is that he can remove himself from the picture to give an objective assessment.

No. The difference is that I'm honest. And the fact that he wouldn't advocate for cigarette laws is irrelevant. He doesn't advocate for the way federal ranch land is managed either and he doesn't turn around and say Clive Bundy somehow was victimizing anyone. I listened to the whole video in context. I just didn't to it with rose colored glasses as you have.

Really, I'm getting tired of this "attack the messenger crap" coming from people like you. I didn't start out talking about cult behavior, but you and others are exhibiting it. Stefan's treatment of Clive Bundy versus Eric Garner was hypocritical. Stefan's blatant lie to Joe Rogan was inexplicable. Stefan's advocating that you don't hang out with people who "want you shot" coupled with saying that anyone advocating any government police "wants you shot" is irresponsible.

I watched Stefan's videos for many years. Listened to a lot of shows where really badly messed up people call in. I never seen him go for DEFOO for not reason. He never suggests that first and never to the extreme you claim.

I'm not making a "claim." I gave you the transcript. He said to say to someone who supports farm subsidies "Do you want me shot?" He said don't hang out with people who want you shot. Just because you've watched a lot of videos where he wasn't that extreme doesn't mean he was never that extreme. Now I'm not saying that he ever said that to any specific person. But his general advice was "Don't hang out with people who want you shot." It's amazing that you can't just admit this.

When people call in and say they do not want to see their parents near their kids because of the way they raised them what would you say? I would never want horrible people around my kids relatives or not. When teenagers call in he 100% of the time tells them if their situation is messed up and then tells them to seek therapy and help. So forgive me when I can't trust someone who does not listen to the man accusing him of being a cult leader who tries to separate people from their parents. To put it in other terms you are not telling the whole truth. You are either careless or have an agenda either way I don't have time for that.

I don't think that people who advocate statism are necessarily horrible people. I don't take the extreme position that people who want the government to collect taxes to pay for for roads want people who are against government funded roads shot. I understand the "logic" on how he gets to that extreme position. But it's still an extreme position. And I'm not making a "claim." I posted the freaking video.

He does not owe Joe Rogan any in depth explanation. He does not go around telling people what happened with him and his wife.

I never said he did. But he didn't need to lie. There is a difference between not giving an in depth explanation and lying. Saying his wife did not get in trouble was a lie. You know this. You have to. It's right there in front of your face. Now Stefan could have said "I'm not going to talk about that other than to say it's not what people think." He didn't. He lied.

And that seemed like an ambush. He can choose to keep it private.

He could have. Instead he chose to lie. Blaming Joe Rogan for a so called "ambush" doesn't excuse the lie.

Then people like you and me can settle this on our own. Some come away with the conclusion that he is a cult leader and spread that all over internet. Others read what happened and decide people like you are crazy. Honestly the only time I ever find this shit is from people who I already do no trust. The guy has a show running for over a decade. Provides great content. Invited to all over the place. Yet you going to have us believe he is some perv or cult leader?

The way you and others are reacting to me prove to me that he actually is some kind of cult leader. Seriously. I'm really shocked to see people I generally have respect for doing insane mental gymnastics to try to "prove" that somehow I'm lying for pointing out the obvious that Stefan lied. People put a lot of their own hopes and dreams into their "heroes." I get it. I understand why so many people took up for Bill Clinton no matter what. I understand when some people defend George W. Bush no matter what. And a part of me understands this "Defend Stefan at all costs regardless of the facts" mentality that I'm seeing in this thread. I'm "crazy" because I see Stefan lie to Joe Rogan and say his wife never got into trouble over defooing when the facts show that she did? Okay. Only a crazy person would think I'm being crazy.

Lastly Ghandi. From his video there was more than just Zulu stuff. You again show how you like to cherry pick stuff because you know someone who never heard of Stefan does not know what you doing.

You really have drunk the kool aid deep haven't you? I didn't say that was all there was to the video. I could have also talked about how Stefan seemed to be defending the idea of the British empire by talking about the barbaric practices of Hinduism and that was quite odd considering that pretty much everyone in the liberty movement agrees that human rights abuses in the Muslim world do not excuse the American empire. And why would I "cherry pick" for the sake of "Someone who has never heard of Stefan" when just about every person on this forum has heard of Stefan? Really what is "crazy" are your arguments. Every "Truth about X" video Stefan does is his "cherry picking."

 

[heavenlyboy34]

I have plenty, actually. Anti-IP folks are either unwilling or unable to get it so I don't see the point in the exercise. I can burn up an entire week of ripping my hair out arguing and not a single soul is going to budge. It's not like I haven't made this argument here before. My conclusion was without IP we wouldn't have books in the modern age, or if we did it would be recycled disjointed pap written by machines, and technology advance would grind to a halt.

I have no desire to go through a whole week to 2 weeks of that absurd stress again only to have all my points overlooked, distorted, or otherwise ignored. Life is too short to argue with brick walls.

Did you actually prove this or just make the claim? There's plenty of evidence to the contrary. (Gutenberg invented the Western printing press and is essentially the inventor of the printed word in the West, but never had a copyright/patent. The classical creators did very well without IP as well-except the ones who didn't understand marketing and capitalizing on markets and such, which was their own fault.

 

[HVACTech]

this thread needs a permanent sticky.

 

[jmdrake]

I have plenty, actually. Anti-IP folks are either unwilling or unable to get it so I don't see the point in the exercise. I can burn up an entire week of ripping my hair out arguing and not a single soul is going to budge. It's not like I haven't made this argument here before. My conclusion was without IP we wouldn't have books in the modern age, or if we did it would be recycled disjointed pap written by machines, and technology advance would grind to a halt.

I have no desire to go through a whole week to 2 weeks of that absurd stress again only to have all my points overlooked, distorted, or otherwise ignored. Life is too short to argue with brick walls.

I remember the last time we had this discussion. I will say this. I am neither pro nor anti IP at this juncture. That said, I fully disagree with the notion that this "modern age" makes it impossible to have books without IP. I believe the opposite is true. With electronic publishing, micro payments, blogging, the ability to put internet links inside of ebooks that might be sponsored by advertisers and internet crowdfunding, its easier than ever for someone to write a book and get paid for it without using copyright. Let's take the last item I mentioned, crowdfunding. I saw a woman publish healthy cookbook for inexpensive meals via kickstarter using a "Buy one give one" model. For everyone who donated enough money up front to buy a paper copy of the book, she would give another paper copy to a local food bank to give to a poor person. But she also let anybody download a free PDF of her book! She met her kickstarter goal. That's just one way out of many to get paid for a book that you are willing to let people download for free. Would that idea work for a mystery novel? I don't know.

 

[HVACTech]

classic HB.
Gutenberg did NOT have a Patent..

Gutenberg invented the Western printing press and is essentially the inventor of the printed word in the West, but never had a copyright/patent.

like my ex-wife, the preposition is that it was POSSIBLE.

 

[acptulsa]

classic HB.
Gutenberg did NOT have a Patent..



like my ex-wife, the preposition is that it was POSSIBLE.

Not to mention acting like patent and copyright is the exact same thing.

 

[PRB]

LMAO!! An amazing misunderstanding of the nature of property, the creative process, economics, and more! (I am in the creative business, and can tell you this from firsthand experience. All you have is your opinion.)

Misunderstanding? or just we disagree on definitions.

Again, I'll ask you to define your terms if you wish to discuss it. Or we can keep playing the "LMAO you're wrong because I said so!" shouting match.

I don't doubt you're in the creative business, but go ahead and share your experience & facts.

 

[PRB]

Not to mention acting like patent and copyright is the exact same thing.

I agree patent, copyright, and trademark are 3 things. I am willing to concede they may not be equally fair to enforce, I wonder if opponents of copyright and IP can concede that not all ideas and information are equal.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Not to mention acting like patent and copyright is the exact same thing.

No I didn't. Copyright, patent, and trademark are all different. I didn't claim otherwise. We went through this several times in the last few IP threads, if you'll recall. If I make a typo and say "copyright" instead of "patent", so what? Typos happen on the interwebz as well as in spoken conversation. That doesn't invalidate the point.

 

[PRB]

classic HB.
Gutenberg did NOT have a Patent..



like my ex-wife, the preposition is that it was POSSIBLE.

Oh, here we go. People saying "This guy didn't have a patent, therefore that's proof people will invent things regardless of monetary reward"

That's like saying I can give you examples of people who worked for free, therefore paying shit wages and asking people to be slaves isn't violating their rights, after all, I have proof people can and do work for free.

 

[PRB]

Copyright. You can't even say if ancaps and libertarians agree on the subject. Negrep coming; enjoy...

I can say libertarians are generally split while ancaps are almost unanimously opposed to copyright, if not opposed to all IP.

Quote me where I lied about this.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

I agree patent, copyright, and trademark are 3 things. I am willing to concede they may not be equally fair to enforce, I wonder if opponents of copyright and IP can concede that not all ideas and information are equal.

I'll concede that gladly. I still won't accept the claim that ideas or expressions of them can reasonably be called "property" because there is no proof of it. It's just variations on "X authority said it is so, therefore it is so". That's just theory. Practice is very, very different.

 

[PRB]

Did you actually prove this or just make the claim? There's plenty of evidence to the contrary. (Gutenberg invented the Western printing press and is essentially the inventor of the printed word in the West, but never had a copyright/patent. The classical creators did very well without IP as well-except the ones who didn't understand marketing and capitalizing on markets and such, which was their own fault.

Can you acknowledge this? Just so we know you actually have some grasp of what information/ideas are?

Any intellectually honest person must acknowledge there's at least 3 types of information, if not more.
1. facts/discoveries/physical laws of nature
2. creative work (art/music/writing)
3. propaganda

 

[PRB]

I'll concede that gladly. I still won't accept the claim that ideas or expressions of them can reasonably be called "property" because there is no proof of it. It's just variations on "X authority said it is so, therefore it is so". That's just theory. Practice is very, very different.

What is your definition of property which ideas and expressions of it cannot meet?

And better yet, does something need to be property for one to be justified to use force to control? (For example, if you cannot say Stefan Molyneux's home phone number is his property, has he better justification to ask people not to spread it around, knowing it may cause people to harass him?)

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Oh, here we go. People saying "This guy didn't have a patent, therefore that's proof people will invent things regardless of monetary reward"

That's like saying I can give you examples of people who worked for free, therefore paying shit wages and asking people to be slaves isn't violating their rights, after all, I have proof people can and do work for free.

Though that is true, it's not part of the argument against IP. The argument is that there are legitimate ways to capitalize on inventions without resorting the crony capitalist measures of IP registration.

 

[PRB]

Though that is true, it's not part of the argument against IP. The argument is that there are legitimate ways to capitalize on inventions without resorting the crony capitalist measures of IP registration.

Fair enough.

What would be one? And please don't tell me "trade secrets" when you know that patents were created to protect things which clearly can't be protected as trade secrets (things which you can see with a naked eye).

Are you saying that IP can't exist and should never be enforced? Or just that you don't like the way it's enforced today?

 

[PRB]

ETA - you may also note that I am not waiting until I suddenly have IP to decide that IP is OK.

But people who oppose IP, are almost always guaranteed to be those which don't benefit from it.

Ask the same question about "is ________ legitimate property" and fill in the blank with land, gold, air, slaves...to know what a person will answer, you need only know whether this person can profit from it.

 

[HVACTech]

Oh, here we go. People saying "This guy didn't have a patent, therefore that's proof people will invent things regardless of monetary reward"

That's like saying I can give you examples of people who worked for free, therefore paying shit wages and asking people to be slaves isn't violating their rights, after all, I have proof people can and do work for free.

who says Gutenberg was not BORED?
and just liked fucking around with machines?
are you one of my ex's?

 

[heavenlyboy34]

What is your definition of property which ideas and expressions of it cannot meet?)

"Property" is something tangible in the physical world.

[h=1]property[/h]

[prop-er-tee]

• Synonyms
• Examples
• Word Origin

noun, plural properties. 1. that which a person owns; the possession or possessions of a particular owner: They lost all their property in the fire.


2. goods, land, etc., considered as possessions: The corporation is a means for the common ownership of property.


3. a piece of land or real estate: property on Main Street.


4. ownership; right of possession, enjoyment, or disposal of anything, especially of something tangible: to have property in land.

"Ideas" are abstractions. They exist in the mind alone. Even defenders of IP admit this-hence only physical manifestations of ideas can be registered as IP according to laws applying to all forms of IP.

And better yet, does something need to be property for one to be justified to use force to control? (For example, if you cannot say Stefan Molyneux's home phone number is his property, has he better justification to ask people not to spread it around, knowing it may cause people to harass him?)

Yes. If I were to try to steal your television, for example, you would be justified in using force to stop me. However, were I to copy your TV by memorizing the details of it by observing it and reverse engineering it, you are no poorer for it-and cannot legitimately use force to stop me.

As I mentioned in previous threads, an inventor who really doesn't want other people to "steal" his idea should not sell anything-but rent it out instead. (This obviously doesn't stop the person with perfect memory like Murray Rothbard, but it is a legitimate and rational means of controlling what happens with expressions of an idea)

It is somewhat reminiscent of physical gold. If you have it stored in someone else's vault somewhere, it is technically yours, but in practice you've surrendered control of it. Hence the old line among "gold bugs"-if you don't have it in your physical possession, it's not really yours.